My conclusion, rather, was that the Lisp family is the only family where people argue against languages belonging to that family. Your statement was that it's the only family where people argue for languages belonging to it.
Much of my reply was a response to the other clause I quoted, about no one arguing that JS, Java, and PHP, are "a C". I pointed out that the reason for that is simply that no one thinks of them that way, superficial syntax resemblances aside. There is in fact a C family, but it happens that you picked three languages where neither users of C family languages, nor users of the languages you mention, would argue that those three are a part of it.
You'll note that arguing for vs against is not a disagreement: if someone is arguing against inclusion, that rather implies that someone is is arguing for it. Rather, your last sentence posed a question, based on your observation. My reply, which explains why there's such an argument to begin with, was intended to answer it.
The point is not "only family" its "only family, where people argue about being in the family"
I think it's actually not the only language family where people argue about admission. But that doesn't seem to be your point.
Your point seems to be "there are other families"